Measuring Up

Hawaii

Year Charter School Law Was Enacted: 1994Estimated Number of Public Charter Schools in 2014-15: 34Estimated Number of Public Charter School Students in 2014-15: 10,413

Changes in 2015

Hawaii’s score remained at 136 points. Its ranking moved from #24 to #26.

Recommendations

Hawaii’s law does not cap charter public school growth, provides a single authorizing option to applicants, and provides sufficient accountability; however, the law still provides inadequate autonomy and inequitable funding to charter public schools.

Hawaii’s law still needs significant improvement in several areas, including beefing up the requirements for charter application, review, and decisionmaking processes; exempting charter schools from collective bargaining agreements; and ensuring equitable operational funding and equitable access to capital funding and facilities.

Hawaii law creates a state public charter school commission that has statewide authorizing authority. In addition, the law allows accredited public and private postsecondary institutions, county and state agencies, and nonprofits to apply to the state board of education to become an authorizer. There are 33 charter schools open in the state.

3

3A. The state allows two or more authorizing options (e.g., school districts and a state charter schools commission) for each applicant with direct application to each authorizer.

Hawaii law includes each element of the model law's authorizer and overall program accountability system.

The law requires the state board of education to provide oversight for all authorizers in the state, with such authorizers (except the state public charter school commission) needing to submit an application to become an authorizer (and if approved receiving an initial six-year authorizing contract). All authorizers must submit annual reports to the state board of education, which in turn must review and determine if the provisions of the authorizing contract are being met. In evaluating the performance of authorizers, the state board of education must apply nationally recognized principles and standards for quality authorizing. Statute provides for a process of non-renewal or revocation of the authorizing contract as needed.

The state board of education must submit an annual report on the overall charter school program to the governor, the legislature, and the public.

12

4A. At least a registration process for local school boards to affirm their interest in chartering to the state.

N/A

4B. Application process for other eligible authorizing entities.

4C. Authorizer submission of annual report, which summarizes the agency’s authorizing activities as well as the performance of its school portfolio.

4D. A regular review process by authorizer oversight body.

4E. Authorizer oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers, including removal of authorizer right to approve schools.

4F. Periodic formal evaluation of overall state charter school program and outcomes.

The law provides that the state public charter school commission shall operate with dedicated resources and staff qualified to execute the day-to-day responsibilities of the commission pursuant to this chapter. Beginning with the 2015–16 fiscal year, the law states that the legislature shall make an appropriation to the commission separate from, and in addition to, any appropriation made to charter. The law also allows the commission to assess fees on nonstate entities and individuals to help offset its operating costs. However, statute is silent on any financial support for other potential authorizers.

Statute provides clear requirements to publicly report authorizer expenditures, to have separate contracts for any purchased services, and to prohibit authorizers from requiring any specific services purchases from them.

Hawaii law provides application elements for all schools and additional application elements specific to conversion schools, requires authorizers to issue requests for proposals, and requires a thorough evaluation of each application including an in-person interview and a public meeting. It does not provide additional application elements specific to virtual schools, educational service providers, and replications.

As part of a state agency, the state public charter school commission is subject to the state sunshine law, which requires all official business be conducted in a public meeting. Statute also requires the commission to clearly identify its reasons in writing for not approving any charter application.

8

6A. Application elements for all schools.

6B. Additional application elements specific to conversion schools.

6C. Additional application elements specific to virtual schools.

6D. Additional application elements specific when using educational service providers.

Hawaii’s law clearly states that the charter is a separate document signed by the governing board and the authorizer that defines the responsibilities of both parties. The law also requires the contract contain a detailed performance framework including every item specifically mentioned in the model law.

The law is silent on the length of the initial charter contract (although it notes that charters can be renewed for additional terms up to five years each time).

There are no specific requirements for charter schools engaged in “virtual education” (as it is called in the law).

8

7A. Being created as a separate document from the application and executed by the governing board of the charter school and the authorizer.

7B. Defining the roles, powers, and responsibilities for the school and its authorizer.

7C. Defining academic and operational performance expectations by which the school will be judged, based on a performance framework that includes measures and metrics for, at a minimum, student academic proficiency and growth, achievement gaps, attendance, recurrent enrollment, postsecondary readiness (high schools), financial performance, and board stewardship (including compliance).

7D. Providing an initial term of five operating years (or a longer term with periodic high-stakes reviews.

7E. Including requirements addressing the unique environments of virtual schools, if applicable.

Hawaii law requires that by September 1 each year, authorizers must issue a performance report and charter contract renewal application guidance to any school whose contract is in its final contract year, which must include the school’s performance record to date and any weaknesses or concerns that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal. The law provides charter boards with 30 days to submit any corrections or clarifications for the report. It also requires them to submit their renewal applications by no later than March 1.

The law states clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal as grounded in the performance framework detailed in the contract. It states that contracts may be renewed for successive five-year terms, although it allows authorizers to vary the terms based on the particular circumstances of the school.

The law allows authorizers to revoke the charter for failure to meet the state student performance standards, fiscal irresponsibility, or serious student or employee health or safety deficiencies. The law requires authorizers to develop revocation and non-renewal processes that provide timely notification and time for reasonable responses. It requires that decisions be made in a public hearing with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing. The law requires authorizers to report such actions to the state board of education along with assurances of law compliance.

The law requires authorizers to develop a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

16

9A. Authorizer must issue school performance renewal reports to schools whose charter will expire the following year.

9B. Schools seeking renewal must apply for it.

9C. Authorizers must issue renewal application guidance that provides an opportunity for schools to augment their performance record and discuss improvements and future plans.

9D. Clear criteria for renewal and nonrenewal/revocation.

9E. Authorizers must ground renewal decisions based on evidence regarding the school’s performance over the term of the charter contract (in accordance with the performance framework set forth in the charter contract).

9F. Authorizer authority to vary length of charter renewal contract terms based on performance or other issues.

9G. Authorizers must provide charter schools with timely notification of potential revocation or non-renewal (including reasons) and reasonable time to respond.

9H. Authorizers must provide charter schools with due process for nonrenewal and revocation decisions (e.g., public hearing, submission of evidence).

9I. All charter renewal, non-renewal, and revocation decisions made in a public meeting, with authorizers stating reasons for non-renewals and revocations in writing.

9J. Authorizers must have school closure protocols to ensure timely parent notification, orderly student and record transitions, and property and asset disposition.

Hawaii law lacks most of the model law’s provisions for educational service providers.

The law allows all types of educational service providers to operate schools.

The law requires the charter application to detail a governance structure that incorporates a conflict of interest policy but does not require that existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities be disclosed and explained in the charter application. The law also provides that no person may serve on the governing board of a charter school if the person is an employee or former employee of any vendor or contractor providing goods or services to any charter school under the jurisdiction of that governing board unless the person is a vendor or contractor and at least one year has passed since the conclusion of the vendor or contractor’s service to a charter school under the jurisdiction of that governing board or the person’s serving on the governing board shall not cause more than one-third of the voting members of the governing board to be made up of vendors or contractors who are providing goods or services to any charter school that is under the jurisdiction of that governing board. The law also provides that no vendor or contractor providing goods or services to a charter school may serve as the chair of the governing board of that charter school unless at least one year has elapsed since the conclusion of the vendor’s or contractor’s service to the school, provided that an authorizer may grant an exemption from this requirement.

The law does not require educational service provider information within the charter application, does not require authorizer approval of any performance contracts between schools and educational service providers, and does not ensure that school governing boards operate as entities legally and fiscally independent of any educational service provider.

2

10A. All types of educational service providers (both for-profit and non-profit) explicitly allowed to operate all or parts of schools.

10B. The charter application requires 1) performance data for all current and past schools operated by the ESP, including documentation of academic achievement and (if applicable) school management success; and 2) explanation and evidence of the ESP’s capacity for successful growth while maintaining quality in existing schools.

10C. A performance contract is required between the independent public charter school board and the ESP, setting forth material terms including but not limited to: performance evaluation measures; methods of contract oversight and enforcement by the charter school board; compensation structure and all fees to be paid to the ESP; and conditions for contract renewal and termination.

10D. The material terms of the ESP performance contract must be approved by the authorizer prior to charter approval.

10E. School governing boards operating as entities completely independent of any educational service provider (e.g., must retain independent oversight authority of their charter schools, and cannot give away their authority via contract).

10F. Existing and potential conflicts of interest between the two entities are required to be disclosed and explained in the charter application.

Hawaii law provides that each charter school’s local school board is to be an independent governing body of its charter school and is responsible for the financial, organizational, and academic viability of the charter school and the implementation of the charter and is the independent authority that determines the organization and management of the school, the curriculum, virtual education, and compliance with applicable federal and state laws.

Hawaii law requires start-up charter schools to provide open enrollment to any student residing in the state who is entitled to attend a department school.

The law requires start-up charter schools to select students through a public lottery if capacity is insufficient to enroll all students who have submitted a timely application.

The law allows start-up charter schools to give enrollment preferences for prior year students within chartered schools and siblings of enrolled students enrolled at a charter school.

The law requires conversion charter schools to enroll any student who resides within the school’s former geographic service area for the grades that were in place when the public school converted to a charter school. It also requires conversion charter schools to be subject to the enrollment requirements for start-up charter schools for grades that were not in place when the school converted to a public charter school.

Hawaii law provides that a student who is currently enrolled in a charter school that has been notified of the prospect of revocation or is closing shall be given first priority to enroll at another charter school to which the student applies or placed at the top of the waitlist for enrollment.

Hawaii law provides that a start-up charter school may give enrollment preference through a weighted lottery to educationally disadvantaged students.

The law does not provide an optional enrollment preference for children of a school’s founders, governing board members, and full-time employees, not exceeding 10 percent of the school’s total student population.

4

12A. Open enrollment to any student in the state.

12B. Lottery requirements.

12C. Required enrollment preferences for previously enrolled students within conversions, prior year students within chartered schools, siblings of enrolled students enrolled at a charter school.

12D. Optional enrollment preference for children of a school’s founders, governing board members, and full-time employees, not exceeding 10% of the school’s total student population.

Hawaii law provides that charter schools are exempt from all state rules and statutes applicable to traditional public schools or districts, except those applying to discriminatory practices and health and safety requirements. In addition, Hawaii law provides that the negotiated master agreements apply to charter school employees unless the exclusive union representatives and the local school board of a charter school enter into supplemental agreements that contain cost and noncost items to facilitate decentralized decisionmaking.

Hawaii law does not exempt charter school teachers from state teacher certification requirements.

Hawaii law provides that the negotiated master agreements apply to charter school employees unless the exclusive union representatives and the local school board of a charter school enter into supplemental agreements that contain cost and non-cost items to facilitate decentralized decision-making. In addition, any person with civil service status in a conversion school retains that status and all privileges and benefits as other civil servants.

Hawaii law grants charter school students the same opportunity as students at department schools to participate in sports activities whether it be provided at the charter school or a comparable program at a department school. The law, however, is silent on such rights for employees and on nonsports extracurricular activities.

3

16A. Laws or regulations explicitly state that charter school students and employees are eligible to participate in all interscholastic leagues, competitions, awards, scholarships, and recognition programs available to non-charter public school students and employees.

16B. Laws or regulations explicitly allow charter school students in schools not providing extra-curricular and interscholastic activities to have access to those activities at non-charter public schools for a fee by a mutual agreement.

Hawaii law provides that the state department of education is responsible for the provision of a free appropriate public education and that any charter school is responsible for providing the educational and related services required by a student’s individualized education program (IEP). If the school cannot provide all of the required services, then the law requires the department to provide them as determined by the IEP. The law also requires the department to collaborate with the state public charter school commission to develop guidelines related to the provision of special education services and resources to each charter school and allows the department to offer staff, funding, or both to the school based on a per-pupil weighted formula used to allocate resources for special education students in all public schools.

The law does not provide clarity regarding funding for low-incident, high-cost services for charter schools in the same amount or in a manner similar to other LEAs.

4

17A. Clarity regarding which entity is the local education agency (LEA) responsible for providing special education services.

17B. Clarity regarding funding for low-incident, high-cost services for charter schools (in the same amount and/or in a manner similar to other LEAs).

Hawaii provides operational funds to its charter schools via a line-item appropriation in the state budget, using a charter schools account as a separate account in the state treasury. The law notes that the nonfacility general fund per-pupil funding is to be the same as that allocated for traditional public schools. It also directs the state director of finance to transfer additional general fund money to charter schools as needed. The law also provides that charter schools are eligible for all applicable federal funding.

Although not stated in law, transportation dollars are in the “general funds” category in the state’s budget, and charters receive equal non-facility general fund money.

In a national study of charter school funding (University of Arkansas, Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands, 2014), Hawaii charter schools were receiving on average $8,986 per pupil in public funds, while traditional public schools would have received $13,601 for those students. As a result, the state’s charter schools were receiving $4,615 per pupil—or 33.9 percent—less than what the traditional public schools would have received for those students. This figure includes all sources of funding, and analysis reveals some significant inequities for both operational and capital funding (see Component #19 for information on capital issues).

18A. Equitable operational funding statutorily driven.

18B. Equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding, and clear guidance on the pass-through of such funds.

Hawaii law provides that beginning with the 2016-2017 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, the legislature shall consider making an appropriation and bond authorization to the commission for the design, planning, construction, repair, and maintenance of public charter school improvements to address issues of health, safety, and legal compliance, expand or improve instructional space, provide for food services, or provide restroom facilities. The appropriation and bond authorization for charter schools shall be separate from, and in addition to, any appropriation made to charter schools. These amounts shall be prioritized for allocation by the charter school facilities working group. The legislature is currently not providing funding for facilities costs.

Hawaii law requires the state department of education to make vacant department school facilities available to charter schools.

Hawaii law provides that when any department considers whether to close any particular facility, it shall give reasonable consideration to making all or portions of the facility available to charter schools and early learning programs; provided that the facilities may be used for any other purpose the department of education deems appropriate.

Each department shall provide notice to the superintendent, state public charter school commission, and executive office on early learning, identifying suitable unused facilities that may be appropriate for public charter schools, early learning programs, including the pre-plus program and any other purpose the department of education deems appropriate.

The department of accounting and general services shall inventory the suitable facilities, and, in determining suitability for educational re-use, priority shall be given to facilities on sites with sufficient space for three or more classrooms.

Upon receipt of a notice, the state public charter school commission or executive office on early learning shall solicit applications from public charter schools or early learning programs, respectively, that are interested in using and occupying all or portions of the facilities and submit a prioritized list of public charter schools or early learning programs, respectively, to the department of accounting and general services for final determination of which public charter schools or early learning programs, if any, shall be authorized to use and occupy the facilities.

4

19A. A per-pupil facilities allowance which annually reflects actual average district capital costs.

19B. A state grant program for charter school facilities.

19C. A state loan program for charter school facilities.

19D. Equal access to tax-exempt bonding authorities or allow charter schools to have their own bonding authority.

19E. A mechanism to provide credit enhancement for public charter school facilities.

19F. Equal access to existing state facilities programs available to non-charter public schools.

19G. Right of first refusal to purchase or lease at or below fair market value a closed, unused, or underused public school facility or property.

19H. Prohibition of facility-related requirements stricter than those applied to traditional public schools.